Philosophy for Writing Across Difference: A Coursing River

When I think of people with differences, I picture a river. Every river has two riverbanks,
two opposite sides. Depending on which side you stand on, your perspective will be different.
Although the river may be wide and deep, it is not impossible for either person to reach a middle
ground, to cross to the other side, or overcome its seemingly unpredictable rapids. All it takes is a
bridge, boat, or kayak.
To begin the process of writing across difference, one must first define difference.
Through what Ive learned, difference means aspects of life that are not similar in the way that
we are focusing on. It does not, however, mean that there are no similarities at all. Simply that
the one in that specific capacity does not exist. Difference is based off of a perception that is
unlike anothers because of personal experiences or knowledge base. Crowley and Hawhee in
Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students stated that, Ancient teachers of rhetoric thought
that disagreement among human beings was inevitable, since individuals perceive the world
differently from one another. I know and accept that differences are a natural occurrence that
cannot be avoided. They can be a hindrance whether it be concerning decisions, discussions, or
event. However, they can also contribute a great deal to a situation by bringing in another
perspective and adding something that was not there before.
A bridge is useful if you want to reach a middle ground, like compromising. I find this is
similar to Invitational Rhetoric. According to Foss and Griffin in Beyond Persuasion: A
Proposal for Invitation Rhetoric, this kind of communication is when change occurs in the
audience or rhetor or both as a result of new understanding and insights gained in the exchange
of ideas. It requires both sides to exchange ideas and collaborate to work together efficiently.
As rhetors and audience members offer ideas, they allow diverse positions to be compared in a

process of discovery and questioning that may lead to transformation for themselves and others.
Just like a rivers depth is constantly changing because of weather conditions, so is language and
the way language is conveyed because of changes in social constructs. It is important that both
sides offer new solutions to combat it together.
A boat is useful if you want one side to fully cross over to another side, to change ones
perspective almost entirely or show another perspective to the other. I find this is most similar to
communicating through a Contact Zone. Mary Louise Pratt describes a contact zone as social
spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly
asymmetrical relations of power. For a Contact Zone to exist, there must be a distinct dominant
group and a marginalized group. The goal, in this case, would be for the marginalized group to
bring the dominant group over to their side to understand their perspective on the given situation.
The dominant discourse has to be disrupted and reclaimed by the lesser of the two groups.
Whereas Invitational Rhetoric was a collaboration process where both sides are passively
working together, this is more of an aggressive tactic that seeks to directly engage in dispute or
conflict within the situation. The boat will be faced with many obstacles and challenges when
crossing to the other side. It will not be an easy journey/transition, but with enough perseverance
it isnt impossible.
Rhetoric is fluctuating because society is constantly changing and shifting its perception
on subjects and the way they approach those subjects. This is like being in a kayak in the middle
of a surging river. You have to be able to anticipate, adapt, and overcome the rapids because you
have the resources (kayak, oars, life vest, helmet, and skill set) at your disposal to navigate
through even the roughest terrain. It is easy to understand and accept the mutability of rhetoric
because each person is mutable. What can be difficult is keeping up with those changes to avoid

conflicts. Kairos is explained by Crowley and Hawhee in Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation:
Seizing the Moment as a kind of ready stance, in which rhetors are not only attuned to the
history of an issue (chronos) but are also aware of the more precise turns taken by arguments
about it and when the arguments took these turns. The rhetor must always be knowledgeable
and equipped when a communication catalyst presents itself. Crowley and Hawhee said that
Kairos requires that rhetors view writing and speaking as opportunities for exploring issues and
making knowledge. The rhetor may not have prompted the communication, but he/she should
recognize a prospect and be prepared to act. A leisure ride can take a sudden turn and you have to
be ready for that kairotic moment.
Whichever type of communication tactic used, there will always be a rhetor and an
audience. They have an intimate relationship because the person controlling the verbal or written
relationship is attempting to connect on a level that is deep enough to either change the others
view point entirely or at least understand the others view point. The aim is either to build a
connection or strengthen one that already exists. Their relationship is fluid like a river; its
constantly moving. For a change to occur, there must be a willingness on both sides to listen to
the other point of view and respond in a productive manner.
The metaphor that I constructed in my mind helps me visualize how to overcome
disagreements in a way that fits each type of situation. The water, the rapids, the boat, the bridge,
and the kayak are all part of one big picture and they must work together to reach an end.
Writing/communicating across difference can be summed up in a sentence that I have been
working to improve all semester: To communicate effectively across a difference you have to
want to be understood, but also have a willingness to understand.